Ban 'anonymous' speech online?

Monster Rain

pandora wrote:

"turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity”

This says it all to me, no right to speech lost only the right to make victims.

If one wants to criticize or accuse another, the law does not stop that,
no freedom of speech lost, one always has a choice.

What is lost is the ability to hide from the person you are criticizing or accusing.

If you say something, stand strong and behind your words, speak the truth,
have proof to back it up. Take personal responsibility and accountability.

If you attack know that your victim can and will attack back, will defend themselves.
As they have the right to do.

I often wondered where slander fits into the exchange on the internet...
we my soon find out.

Slander already has a legal definition. There's no need for a law like this to exist to protect people from slander. If something fits the legal definition of slanderous, there are already legal channels to allow you to try to find out who said it (and it's possible to fake an IP address and it's possible for your IP address to change, so this bill wouldn't provide any more protection from mean words if ther person typing them is computer-savvy). Free speech is only restricted if it causes or promotes a public saefty hazard or fits the definition of libel or slander. This is absolutely a restriciton of both free speech and privacy. The Constitution doesn't mention any exclusions for mean words that hurt people's feelings--especially when it involves protecting politicians from the public's throughts.

Jeanwah

What sly little rats NY politicians are. This has been going on for weeks and just now citizens are finding out about it. With all the real problems we are having - economy, jobs, education cuts, disaster relief from last years hurricane (still!), they have the balls to place precedence to this garbage.

pandora

Monster Rain wrote:

pandora wrote:

"turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity”

This says it all to me, no right to speech lost only the right to make victims.

If one wants to criticize or accuse another, the law does not stop that,
no freedom of speech lost, one always has a choice.

What is lost is the ability to hide from the person you are criticizing or accusing.

If you say something, stand strong and behind your words, speak the truth,
have proof to back it up. Take personal responsibility and accountability.

If you attack know that your victim can and will attack back, will defend themselves.
As they have the right to do.

I often wondered where slander fits into the exchange on the internet...
we my soon find out.

Slander already has a legal definition. There's no need for a law like this to exist to protect people from slander. If something fits the legal definition of slanderous, there are already legal channels to allow you to try to find out who said it (and it's possible to fake an IP address and it's possible for your IP address to change, so this bill wouldn't provide any more protection from mean words if ther person typing them is computer-savvy). Free speech is only restricted if it causes or promotes a public saefty hazard or fits the definition of libel or slander. This is absolutely a restriciton of both free speech and privacy. The Constitution doesn't mention any exclusions for mean words that hurt people's feelings--especially when it involves protecting politicians from the public's throughts.

It is protecting people from hate and untruths, same as our hate crime legislation.
Some people are ignorant and want to victimize others this will hinder them because
people will no longer be anonymous in their bullying.

Godfather.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/25/world/eur ... ?hpt=hp_c2


Godfather.

Idris

pandora wrote:

Do you consider hate crime legislation to be bubble gum?
Do you think we need it in place to correct the ignorant
who are unable to be respectful to others unless they are shown by a law.

This is similar legislation with a similar positive outcome.

Yes, in fact, I find those types of laws to be the cheapest kind of 'Bubble Gum', like the kind you can only chew a few times before the piece get's stale.

You can't fight hate with those laws. It's the illusion again, it does just about nothing to solve the underlying issue of the 'Hate'. Now something else, 'Hate' is very broad, and the laws vary greatly (even the definition of 'hate' varies). So I'm just giving my general view on the issue and not get into the greater details or philosophy of it etc. (A bit busy right now)

If someone has hate in their heart, say they don't like Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Smurfs or whatever else...and the reason these 'haters' don't openly preach that hate is because of the laws, well to my mind, I find that to be most unfortunate, because it just keeps the hate bottled inside,they are worried about 'punishment' for their view. Now I know, and probably most people here may know or feel that the best way to deal with the 'ignorant' is to 'try' and educate, understand, reason. Not just flash the 'law' in front of them and then claim ' positive outcome. It's the illusion of a positive outcome. Because we did nothing to 'truly' address the hate. We just flashed the 'law' then smile to ourselves or one another claiming 'all is well' in our world.

pandora wrote:

I would love to think people will be kind and accepting on their own but as we see
with the cyber bullies that is just not happening.
Being anonymous is creating these bullies because there is no personal
accountability. They do not have to be kind so they can victimize with their words,
we see this regularly.

So bully them into liking everyone? No thanks. Some people are kind and accepting, some are not. People have a right not to be kind and not to be accepting, people should have a right to speak the most vile racist words that they can think of.
-
(I gotta bounce, so I'm cutting it here, I'll try and finish this off later if I get around to it, I hope my post is not too all over the place, I'm rushing a bit)

pandora

Idris wrote:

pandora wrote:

Do you consider hate crime legislation to be bubble gum?
Do you think we need it in place to correct the ignorant
who are unable to be respectful to others unless they are shown by a law.

This is similar legislation with a similar positive outcome.

Yes, in fact, I find those types of laws to be the cheapest kind of 'Bubble Gum', like the kind you can only chew a few times before the piece get's stale.

You can't fight hate with those laws. It's the illusion again, it does just about nothing to solve the underlying issue of the 'Hate'. Now something else, 'Hate' is very broad, and the laws vary greatly (even the definition of 'hate' varies). So I'm just giving my general view on the issue and not get into the greater details or philosophy of it etc. (A bit busy right now)

If someone has hate in their heart, say they don't like Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Smurfs or whatever else...and the reason these 'haters' don't openly preach that hate is because of the laws, well to my mind, I find that to be most unfortunate, because it just keeps the hate bottled inside,they are worried about 'punishment' for their view. Now I know, and probably most people here may know or feel that the best way to deal with the 'ignorant' is to 'try' and educate, understand, reason. Not just flash the 'law' in front of them and then claim ' positive outcome. It's the illusion of a positive outcome. Because we did nothing to 'truly' address the hate. We just flashed the 'law' then smile to ourselves or one another claiming 'all is well' in our world.

pandora wrote:

I would love to think people will be kind and accepting on their own but as we see
with the cyber bullies that is just not happening.
Being anonymous is creating these bullies because there is no personal
accountability. They do not have to be kind so they can victimize with their words,
we see this regularly.

So bully them into liking everyone? No thanks. Some people are kind and accepting, some are not. People have a right not to be kind and not to be accepting, people should have a right to speak the most vile racist words that they can think of.
-
(I gotta bounce, so I'm cutting it here, I'll try and finish this off later if I get around to it, I hope my post is not too all over the place, I'm rushing a bit)

I agree in general terms but definitely not one on one.
Laws are to protect the innocent from the not so.

Monster Rain

If it's not a crime to insult someone, the Constitution promises us a right to privacy, and the Constitution also promises us free speech then how is it OK for the government to put restrictions on free speech when the speech in question is not a crime? YOu might not think it's violating our free speech but how is forcing someone to say something any better than preventing you from saying something--especially when what you're being forced to say is intended to deter you from saying something else? On top of that, it is incredibly disturbing that a government official can order you to publicly identify yourself if you say something he/she doesn't like. Why should that person have forced access to your name and address just because you said something that may or may not be offensive? Also, if this type of speech on the Internet is so horrible, why is it not a crime for politicians to make such attacks against their opponents during campaigns? Why is it not part of the law that PACs that run attack ads have to include the names of the people who created the ad in big letters in every ad rather than just identifying the PAC? What I'm taking from this bill is that politicians don't want ordinary citizens slinging mud at them unless the government can identify them (and then what happens after they know your name and address?), but they can do all the mudslinging they want because it's somehow not hurtful when they do it. I don't think this board has a font size big enough to illustrate how big and bright the word "hypocrisy" should be when discussing this bill.

pandora

I think the proposal is directed at everyone and that cyber bullying is an across the board
problem, why I think ridding the anonymousness of the internet a very good idea.
To make everyone accountable for their words, that is not too much to ask,
in my opinion.

Why I like the proposal.

It would curtail the problem children are having with cyber bullies
that are even resulting in suicides. I have been researching many articles,
it is heartbreaking what some of our kids are going through. It is a real danger
that is escalating. Bullies are hiding in wait to torment.

Hopefully a proposal can come about that makes everyone feel comfortable, one that addresses
the crime of cyber bullying and also does not allow those who are truthful to be penalized.

I would think we could agree less name calling, mud slinging, branding,
and humiliation would be good thing. Some people may thrive on this but it is
not good for society and especially not good for the children.

Monster Rain

pandora wrote:

I think the proposal is directed at everyone and that cyber bullying is an across the board
problem, why I think ridding the anonymousness of the internet a very good idea.
To make everyone accountable for their words, that is not too much to ask,
in my opinion.

Why I like the proposal.

It would curtail the problem children are having with cyber bullies
that are even resulting in suicides. I have been researching many articles,
it is heartbreaking what some of our kids are going through. It is a real danger
that is escalating. Bullies are hiding in wait to torment.

Hopefully a proposal can come about that makes everyone feel comfortable, one that addresses
the crime of cyber bullying and also does not allow those who are truthful to be penalized.

I would think we could agree less name calling, mud slinging, branding,
and humiliation would be good thing. Some people may thrive on this but it is
not good for society and especially not good for the children.

When kids are bullied online it tends to be from people they already know so forcing some kid to reveal his name isn't going to end the bullying. At best, it will just make the bullying take place somewhere else (the bus stop, recess, the locker room during gym class, etc.).

Also, just because something is true doesn't automatically make it nice, so even if the law was just aiming to prevent false statements, it wouldn't prevent someone from bullying someone else. If there's a gay kid in high school who doesn't want his classmates to know his sexual orientation and a classmate outs him and says things that are true but mean-spirited, what would happen? And what if the person who outed the kid truly believes that homosexuality is a sin and says so? It may not be a popular opinion and it may be hurtful, but if he gives his honest opinion can you really say he said something untrue? So it's not a baseless accusation because it's true (the part about the student being gay) and the rest of it is an opinion. Would that be allowed under this bill? On the flip side, it seems pretty obvious to me that saying something like, "Senator So-and-so is a lying piece of garbage" would absolutely be targeted under this bill and the poster would likely lose any argument because the politician would use that vague, this-is-plausible-if I-word-it-just-right language that politicians are so good at to argue that he is not a liar. One of these examples is much worse than the other, but there's a way for the jerk in each case to win the argument. In one case, the jerk told the truth even if it was none of his business and in the other case the jerk used creative wording to bully a private citizen into putting his name out there for everyone to see.

If you want to legislate manners and kindness, why don't we go ahead and pass a bill that says it's illegal for parents to get in line at the grocery store while sending their kids running around to get "just 1 more thing on the list" while you stand behind them and wait because they can't finish checking out until their kid brings back the milk, OJ, 6 apples, Colgate, Fruity Pebbles, and some Fig Newtons? We should also make a law that you can't call those parents jackasses even though that's what they're being, but if you do call them a jackass you have to first introduce yourself. That would go over well, right? "Hi, I'm Monster Rain. Yes, that's my real name. This is my wife Cindy. I just wanted to let you know that you're a jackass for making us wait in line behind you while your kid gets the half-dozen things you claim you forgot when you really just wanted to avoid waiting in line behind other people who finished their shopping before going to the cashier."

pandora

Monster Rain wrote:

pandora wrote:

I think the proposal is directed at everyone and that cyber bullying is an across the board
problem, why I think ridding the anonymousness of the internet a very good idea.
To make everyone accountable for their words, that is not too much to ask,
in my opinion.

Why I like the proposal.

It would curtail the problem children are having with cyber bullies
that are even resulting in suicides. I have been researching many articles,
it is heartbreaking what some of our kids are going through. It is a real danger
that is escalating. Bullies are hiding in wait to torment.

Hopefully a proposal can come about that makes everyone feel comfortable, one that addresses
the crime of cyber bullying and also does not allow those who are truthful to be penalized.

I would think we could agree less name calling, mud slinging, branding,
and humiliation would be good thing. Some people may thrive on this but it is
not good for society and especially not good for the children.

When kids are bullied online it tends to be from people they already know so forcing some kid to reveal his name isn't going to end the bullying. At best, it will just make the bullying take place somewhere else (the bus stop, recess, the locker room during gym class, etc.).

Also, just because something is true doesn't automatically make it nice, so even if the law was just aiming to prevent false statements, it wouldn't prevent someone from bullying someone else. If there's a gay kid in high school who doesn't want his classmates to know his sexual orientation and a classmate outs him and says things that are true but mean-spirited, what would happen? And what if the person who outed the kid truly believes that homosexuality is a sin and says so? It may not be a popular opinion and it may be hurtful, but if he gives his honest opinion can you really say he said something untrue? So it's not a baseless accusation because it's true (the part about the student being gay) and the rest of it is an opinion. Would that be allowed under this bill? On the flip side, it seems pretty obvious to me that saying something like, "Senator So-and-so is a lying piece of garbage" would absolutely be targeted under this bill and the poster would likely lose any argument because the politician would use that vague, this-is-plausible-if I-word-it-just-right language that politicians are so good at to argue that he is not a liar. One of these examples is much worse than the other, but there's a way for the jerk in each case to win the argument. In one case, the jerk told the truth even if it was none of his business and in the other case the jerk used creative wording to bully a private citizen into putting his name out there for everyone to see.

If you want to legislate manners and kindness, why don't we go ahead and pass a bill that says it's illegal for parents to get in line at the grocery store while sending their kids running around to get "just 1 more thing on the list" while you stand behind them and wait because they can't finish checking out until their kid brings back the milk, OJ, 6 apples, Colgate, Fruity Pebbles, and some Fig Newtons? We should also make a law that you can't call those parents jackasses even though that's what they're being, but if you do call them a jackass you have to first introduce yourself. That would go over well, right? "Hi, I'm Monster Rain. Yes, that's my real name. This is my wife Cindy. I just wanted to let you know that you're a jackass for making us wait in line behind you while your kid gets the half-dozen things you claim you forgot when you really just wanted to avoid waiting in line behind other people who finished their shopping before going to the cashier."

All I can say is your example "Senator So-and-so is a lying piece of garbage" this poster
should lose the argument. It is insulting, rash, rude, without proof and sounds extremely bias.
In fact could it be libel or slander if no proof was offered? Should be. And what if this
Senator is a great person doing great things and someone is just bashing?

The way I see the proposal is people will be very sure of facts, they won't go off half cocked,
they will think about what they say for the value that it is because they must own it.
I also see it protecting children because no one will be anonymous.

Again I see great benefit and the positives that will come. You see the negatives.
We won't agree but maybe we can both hope a proposal to be found that better suits everyone.

peacefrompaul

pandora wrote:

All I can say is your example "Senator So-and-so is a lying piece of garbage" this poster
should lose the argument. It is insulting, rash, rude, without proof and sounds extremely bias.
In fact could it be libel or slander if no proof was offered? Should be. And what if this
Senator is a great person doing great things and someone is just bashing?

The way I see the proposal is people will be very sure of facts, they won't go off half cocked,
they will think about what they say for the value that it is because they must own it.
I also see it protecting children because no one will be anonymous.

Again I see great benefit and the positives that will come. You see the negatives.
We won't agree but maybe we can both hope a proposal to be found that better suits everyone.

There will never be a proposal in this circumstance that will suit everyone... not in my opinion. The way you treat it is you don't treat it. Leave well enough alone... If it bothers you so much then don't have your children on the internet until they can learn to make the choice as to what is fact and what is fiction. Anonymous or not, it would make no difference. If they can't tell the difference then maybe your child isn't ready to handle it. Nobody is forcing them to be on the web. You, as a parent, can certainly turn the computer off anytime you wish or shut off your internet. All it takes is a call to the internet provider. Many people choose to stay anonymous so they can at least attempt to cover their tracks, not necessarily because they want to intentionally harass someone. Most of these people that post anonymously are speaking out against the government... I interact with them on a daily basis... mainly through Twitter

g under p

Byrnzie wrote:

pandora wrote:

Just like we have other laws for ignorant people
we need those to command common courtesy, honesty and decency and rid
the internet of cyber bullies.

By removing anonymous, making people accountable for the damage their words cause,
they will be less likely to hurt others.

If you can not own your words and stand behind them with your identity...
don't say them.

Alternatively, if somebody can't take criticism without feeling 'victimized', causing them to report other posters to the moderators every time they say something that that person doesn't like (causing thread after thread to get locked and people to get bans and warnings), then maybe that person shouldn't post in message board forums in the first place.
Nobody forces anyone else to post messages on the internet and engage in debates, or arguments, of any kind.
If someone is incapable of receiving the odd critical, or even abusive, comment, then they can simply choose an alternative way to spend their time.
Unless of course their intention isn't to engage in discussion in the first place, but simply to preach and condescend.

AS far as protecting children keep them away from the internet or just monitor the sites they say they visit.

Peace

pandora

peacefrompaul wrote:

pandora wrote:

All I can say is your example "Senator So-and-so is a lying piece of garbage" this poster
should lose the argument. It is insulting, rash, rude, without proof and sounds extremely bias.
In fact could it be libel or slander if no proof was offered? Should be. And what if this
Senator is a great person doing great things and someone is just bashing?

The way I see the proposal is people will be very sure of facts, they won't go off half cocked,
they will think about what they say for the value that it is because they must own it.
I also see it protecting children because no one will be anonymous.

Again I see great benefit and the positives that will come. You see the negatives.
We won't agree but maybe we can both hope a proposal to be found that better suits everyone.

There will never be a proposal in this circumstance that will suit everyone... not in my opinion. The way you treat it is you don't treat it. Leave well enough alone... If it bothers you so much then don't have your children on the internet until they can learn to make the choice as to what is fact and what is fiction. Anonymous or not, it would make no difference. If they can't tell the difference then maybe your child isn't ready to handle it. Nobody is forcing them to be on the web. You, as a parent, can certainly turn the computer off anytime you wish or shut off your internet. All it takes is a call to the internet provider. Many people choose to stay anonymous so they can at least attempt to cover their tracks, not necessarily because they want to intentionally harass someone. Most of these people that post anonymously are speaking out against the government... I interact with them on a daily basis... mainly through Twitter

I think my kids are older than you

Never is a long time, I think a proposal, a law can be made to rid the internet
of it's anonymous environment and protect everyone from any back lash
that comes with honesty.

In a perfect world all parents would monitor their children
and they would not be victims to cyber bullies....
not the case.
It's on the rise, it is dangerous to everyone.

Speaking out against the government is monitored already, this proposal is to keep others
from mean spirited lies and bullying something we don't need in our society.
What we need is honesty and accountability.
We expect that from our govt ....
shouldn't we have to live it too?

pandora

g under p wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

pandora wrote:

Just like we have other laws for ignorant people
we need those to command common courtesy, honesty and decency and rid
the internet of cyber bullies.

By removing anonymous, making people accountable for the damage their words cause,
they will be less likely to hurt others.

If you can not own your words and stand behind them with your identity...
don't say them.

Alternatively, if somebody can't take criticism without feeling 'victimized', causing them to report other posters to the moderators every time they say something that that person doesn't like (causing thread after thread to get locked and people to get bans and warnings), then maybe that person shouldn't post in message board forums in the first place.
Nobody forces anyone else to post messages on the internet and engage in debates, or arguments, of any kind.
If someone is incapable of receiving the odd critical, or even abusive, comment, then they can simply choose an alternative way to spend their time.
Unless of course their intention isn't to engage in discussion in the first place, but simply to preach and condescend.

AS far as protecting children keep them away from the internet or just monitor the sites they say they visit.

Peace

Too little ... I've done some research as to the victims of cyber bullies...
not pretty. They are in a living hell. No one should be allowed to do this randomly
or otherwise.
Removing the anonymous shield bullies have will make a big dent.
It will also help children to learn to be honest and responsible in their words...
that words indeed hurt and effect others and blatant lies are even worse.
I vote for a society that is accountable to one another, that cares for each other
and works together not against.

peacefrompaul

pandora wrote:

I think my kids are older than you

Never is a long time, I think a proposal, a law can be made to rid the internet
of it's anonymous environment and protect everyone from any back lash
that comes with honesty.

In a perfect world all parents would monitor their children
and they would not be victims to cyber bullies....
not the case.
It's on the rise, it is dangerous to everyone.

Speaking out against the government is monitored already, this proposal is to keep others
from mean spirited lies and bullying something we don't need in our society.
What we need is honesty and accountability.
We expect that from our govt ....
shouldn't we have to live it too?

Your kids are probably older than me, I was obviously being hypothetical. Parents should pay attention to their children, if they don't then that is their fault. No need for the government to intervene to help ignorant parents... That's my thought, I still don't buy your (as I see it) weak appeal to Pathos. That's just not the job of the government to me. If these mean bullies were simply ignored then they would go away... there would be no food to feed the troll... it would die of starvation. I certainly don't want the government to bully me and that is why I simply do not vote for people that wish to impose their morals upon me. That in itself is an act of bullying

hedonist

peacefrompaul wrote:

I certainly don't want the government to bully me and that is why I simply do not vote for people that wish to impose their morals upon me. That in itself is an act of bullying

This cuts to the bone what the issue is.

I think you've mentioned in other posts that you're what, 19 or 20? That up there - among other posts of yours - shows me (in a really nice and humbling and uplifting way) that wisdom isn't precipitated only by age/experience, but sometimes...is just there, in spirit and outlook.

Idris

hedonist wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

I certainly don't want the government to bully me and that is why I simply do not vote for people that wish to impose their morals upon me. That in itself is an act of bullying

This cuts to the bone what the issue is.

I think you've mentioned in other posts that you're what, 19 or 20? That up there - among other posts of yours - shows me (in a really nice and humbling and uplifting way) that wisdom isn't precipitated only by age/experience, but sometimes...is just there, in spirit and outlook.

:thumbup:

peacefrompaul

hedonist wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

I certainly don't want the government to bully me and that is why I simply do not vote for people that wish to impose their morals upon me. That in itself is an act of bullying

This cuts to the bone what the issue is.

I think you've mentioned in other posts that you're what, 19 or 20? That up there - among other posts of yours - shows me (in a really nice and humbling and uplifting way) that wisdom isn't precipitated only by age/experience, but sometimes...is just there, in spirit and outlook.

Ah, thanks very much

pandora

peacefrompaul wrote:

pandora wrote:

I think my kids are older than you

Never is a long time, I think a proposal, a law can be made to rid the internet
of it's anonymous environment and protect everyone from any back lash
that comes with honesty.

In a perfect world all parents would monitor their children
and they would not be victims to cyber bullies....
not the case.
It's on the rise, it is dangerous to everyone.

Speaking out against the government is monitored already, this proposal is to keep others
from mean spirited lies and bullying something we don't need in our society.
What we need is honesty and accountability.
We expect that from our govt ....
shouldn't we have to live it too?

Your kids are probably older than me, I was obviously being hypothetical. Parents should pay attention to their children, if they don't then that is their fault. No need for the government to intervene to help ignorant parents... That's my thought, I still don't buy your (as I see it) weak appeal to Pathos. That's just not the job of the government to me. If these mean bullies were simply ignored then they would go away... there would be no food to feed the troll... it would die of starvation. I certainly don't want the government to bully me and that is why I simply do not vote for people that wish to impose their morals upon me. That in itself is an act of bullying

I think many can not ignore when lies are being said nor should they have to.
It is more than disruptive, it is disturbing to one's life.
It is pure and simple injustice and the reaction for many is to hide and succumb,
what a bully wants.

Many laws are based in morality ... how about murder? rape? assault?
these are all physical abuse but there is emotional abuse that is just as
damaging to a life, we see this in personal relationships and the damage done.

I think it wise for people to research and read what is happening to others
out there who are being bullied.

I stick up for the victims.
They have a right to live their life without being a victim.
I rarely have a heart for the abuser. They are cowards, weak...
the psychological profile of these people is also a very good read.

The bullies need to go, remove the shield of anonymity ...
we then remove their weapons ...
hateful words.

peacefrompaul

pandora wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

pandora wrote:

I think my kids are older than you

Never is a long time, I think a proposal, a law can be made to rid the internet
of it's anonymous environment and protect everyone from any back lash
that comes with honesty.

In a perfect world all parents would monitor their children
and they would not be victims to cyber bullies....
not the case.
It's on the rise, it is dangerous to everyone.

Speaking out against the government is monitored already, this proposal is to keep others
from mean spirited lies and bullying something we don't need in our society.
What we need is honesty and accountability.
We expect that from our govt ....
shouldn't we have to live it too?

Your kids are probably older than me, I was obviously being hypothetical. Parents should pay attention to their children, if they don't then that is their fault. No need for the government to intervene to help ignorant parents... That's my thought, I still don't buy your (as I see it) weak appeal to Pathos. That's just not the job of the government to me. If these mean bullies were simply ignored then they would go away... there would be no food to feed the troll... it would die of starvation. I certainly don't want the government to bully me and that is why I simply do not vote for people that wish to impose their morals upon me. That in itself is an act of bullying

I think many can not ignore when lies are being said nor should they have to.
It is more than disruptive, it is disturbing to one's life.
It is pure and simple injustice and the reaction for many is to hide and succumb,
what a bully wants.

Many laws are based in morality ... how about murder? rape? assault?
these are all physical abuse but there is emotional abuse that is just as
damaging to a life, we see this in personal relationships and the damage done.

I think it wise for people to research and read what is happening to others
out there who are being bullied.

I stick up for the victims.
They have a right to live their life without being a victim.
I rarely have a heart for the abuser. They are cowards, weak...
the psychological profile of these people is also a very good read.

The bullies need to go, remove the shield of anonymity ...
we then remove their weapons ...
hateful words.

Yeah except murder and rape effect others and there isn't much anyone can do except staying locked up in their house. You can easily turn the computer off... And of course they have a right to live without being a victim! But, cyber bullying is something completely different then real life bullying as YOU as the VICTIM can simply TURN OFF THE COMPUTER or GO TO ANOTHER WEBSITE. We do not need MORE regulations on how we speak just because a few people are being bullied on the internet, something that can be avoided entirely.